Obviative/Proximate and the Omaha verb system

[rlarson at unlnotes01.unl.edu]

> John:

> I've been pondering the conditioning of bi vs. i as the plural/proximate
> marker and I'm beginning to wonder if bi doesn't occur in mainly irrealis
> contexts or something like that, which is not far in some ways from what
> Rory claims.  It occurs with ama, with negatives, with at least some
> clause markers variably - and I have to check that), and with clauses
> under 'to think'.  It does also occur in songs and names, which seems a
> separate case or cases.  I do think that bi and i are otherwise
synonymous
> and "interchangeable."  (Subject to bi having an additional feature.)

It sounds like our views are starting to converge a bit here.
I agree with John that bi and i are very parallel in function
and probably syntactically interchangeable.  Hence, their
semantic difference should not constitute a problem to any
other paradigm built on the assumption of their grammatical
equivalence.  I would hold that both of these particles are
functionally distinct (though not always distinguishable!)
from the plural marker i.  I would also claim that bi is not
merely conditioned by, but actively signals, the irrealis
condition.

Rory